Varying rates of patient identity verification when using computerized provider order entry.

MedStar author(s):
Citation: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 27(6):924-928, 2020 06 01.PMID: 32377679Institution: MedStar Institute for Innovation | MedStar Washington Hospital CenterDepartment: Emergency Medicine | National Center for Human Factors in HealthcareForm of publication: Journal ArticleMedline article type(s): Journal ArticleSubject headings: *Medical Order Entry Systems | *Patient Identification Systems | *Patient Safety | Delivery of Health Care | Humans | Physicians | Software | Time and Motion StudiesYear: 2020Local holdings: Available online through MWHC library: 2003 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - presentISSN:
  • 1067-5027
Name of journal: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIAAbstract: CONCLUSIONS: Verification rates vary by CPOE product, and this can have patient safety consequences. Copyright (c) The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected]: Factors such as CPOE design, physician training, and the use of a simulated methodology may be impacting verification rates.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five physicians from 4 healthcare systems completed simulated patient scenarios using their respective CPOE system (Epic or Cerner). Eye movements were recorded and analyzed.OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine rates of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) patient identity verification and when and where in the ordering process verification occurred.RESULTS: Across all participants patient id was verified significantly more often than not (62.4% vs 37.6%). Vendor A had significantly higher verification rates than not; vendor B had no difference. Participants using vendor A verified information significantly more often before signing the order than after (88.4% vs 11.6%); there was no difference in vendor B. The banner bar was the most frequent verification location.All authors: Fong A, Fortman E, Hettinger AZ, Howe JL, Miller K, Pruitt Z, Ratwani RMOriginally published: Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association. 2020 May 07Fiscal year: FY2020Digital Object Identifier: Date added to catalog: 2020-07-09
Holdings
Item type Current library Collection Call number Status Date due Barcode
Journal Article MedStar Authors Catalog Article 32377679 Available 32377679

Available online through MWHC library: 2003 - present, Available in print through MWHC library: 1999 - present

CONCLUSIONS: Verification rates vary by CPOE product, and this can have patient safety consequences. Copyright (c) The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: [email protected].

DISCUSSION: Factors such as CPOE design, physician training, and the use of a simulated methodology may be impacting verification rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five physicians from 4 healthcare systems completed simulated patient scenarios using their respective CPOE system (Epic or Cerner). Eye movements were recorded and analyzed.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine rates of computerized provider order entry (CPOE) patient identity verification and when and where in the ordering process verification occurred.

RESULTS: Across all participants patient id was verified significantly more often than not (62.4% vs 37.6%). Vendor A had significantly higher verification rates than not; vendor B had no difference. Participants using vendor A verified information significantly more often before signing the order than after (88.4% vs 11.6%); there was no difference in vendor B. The banner bar was the most frequent verification location.

English

Powered by Koha